1989-10-10_REVISION - M1988112 (35)

Home Browse Search

of certiorari seeking review of an award of temporary disability benefits entered by the Arizona Industrial Commission. Castillo alleged that he was permanently disabled and, thereforee, entitled to permanent disability benefits. Eventually, the court remanded the matter to the Commission for additional administrative proceedings. During the interim of Castillo's filing for judicial review and the court's remand, both Castillo and the Commission proceeded with processing other aspects of Castillo's workman's compensation claim. Most importantly, the Commission issued a notice terminating Castillo's temporary medical and compensation benefits, which Castillo contested in a hearing before the Commission. When the Commission order was affirmed Castillo filed a second writ of certiorari seeking review of the second order. This writ questioned the lawfulness of the Commission's order terminating Castillo's benefits. The Arizona Court of appeals held that the Industrial Commission retained jurisdiction to terminate benefits notwithstanding the original writ of certiorari reasoning that since: ... it is readily apparent that none of these proceedings remotely involved or purported to affect in any way the prior determination of petitioner's average monthly wage. The subsequent proceedings involved questions concerning petitioner's physical condition, his disability and consequent entitlement tc medical benefits, and to temporary and permanent compensation. A delay in the determination of these matters was not necessary to protect the jurisdiction of this Court in the pending review of the prior average monthly wage determination, nor would such Commission proceedings, in the language of the Arizona Supreme Court as set forth in Whitfield, suara, tend to defeat or usurp the jurisdiction of this Court to the extent that any subsequent decision which we might have rendered would be nugatory. We therefore must conclude that the Commission retained jurisdiction over the proceedings here involved. Because the factual circumstances of Castillo are so similar to the amendment proposed by Battle Mountain, the reasoning quoted above should be adopted. C. Application Of The General Rule And Its Exceptions To The Proposed Amendment Of Battle Mountain's Permit. 13